↓ Skip to main content

Rim sign and histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient values on diffusion-weighted MRI in triple-negative breast cancer: Comparison with ER-positive subtype

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rim sign and histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient values on diffusion-weighted MRI in triple-negative breast cancer: Comparison with ER-positive subtype
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0177903
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yangsean Choi, Sung Hun Kim, In Kyung Youn, Bong Joo Kang, Woo-chan Park, Ahwon Lee

Abstract

To investigate associations between the clinicopathologic features and MRI features of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and ER-positive breast cancer (BC) via apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram analysis. In this study, 221 breast cancer patients with pre-operative MRI performed from August 2009 to March 2015 were included in a retrospective analysis. All patients had a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of invasive carcinoma and were grouped into ER-positive (149) or triple-negative (72) subtypes. DWI rim sign and various ADC parameters (mean; mode; 25, 50, and 75 percentiles; skewness; and kurtosis) between ER-positive and TNBC were compared using whole-lesion ADC histogram analysis. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used for statistical comparison. DWI rim signs were detected in 42.3% and 41.7% of ER-positive subtype and TNBC, respectively (P = 0.931). TNBC had poorer histologic grade (P<0.001) and higher Ki-67 expression (P <0.001) than ER-positive subtype BC. TNBC displayed higher ADC parameters (mean, mode, 50th & 75th percentiles, kurtosis on univariate analysis, all P<0.001; only kurtosis on multivariate anaylsis; P<0.001) than ER-positive subtype BC. TNBC had significantly more recurrence events than ER-positive subtype BC on univarate analysis (9.7% (7/72) vs. 2.7% (4/149), P = 0.035). Poorer clinicopathologic outcomes were found in TNBC. Whole-lesion ADC histogram analysis revealed ADC kurtosis to be higher in TNBC than ER-positive subtype BC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,548,834
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#155,998
of 195,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,010
of 313,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,392
of 4,383 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,772 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,383 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.